> > I guess it's OK, although I would also like to know how you plan to > > handle the interaction between IsSM and IsSMDisabled -- eg what if a > > process opens issm0 and then another process tries to open > > issmdisabled0? Or conversely if issmdisabled0 is open, what happens > > when someone opens issm0? > > I would think those are error cases. Does that make sense ? If so, what > error makes most sense ? EINVAL or something else ?
That's not really in keeping with the current interface. Right now if one process opens issm0 and then a second process tries to open, the second process blocks until the first one closes the file. Would it make more sense to make the issmdisabled interface work in a similar way, i.e. only one of issm and issmdisabled can be open at any time, and an attempt to open both would block the second attempt? _______________________________________________ general mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openfabrics.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/general To unsubscribe, please visit http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general
